"But as I do not wish my reader to be bound down to me, so I do not wish my critic to be bound to himself. Let not the pious reader love me more than the catholic faith. Let not the critic love himself more than the catholic truth. I say to the pious reader, do not be willing to accept my writings as canonical Scriptures. But when you have discovered in the Scriptures what you did not previously believe, believe it unhesitatingly. While in my writings, unless you have understood certainly what you did not before hold as certain, be unwilling to hold it fast. I say to the critic, do not be wiling to amen my writings by your own opinion or argument, but [amend them] from the divine text or by unanswerable reason. If you apprehend anything of truth in them, its being there does not make it mine, but by understanding and loving it, let it be both yours and mine. But if you detect any falsehood, though it had once been mine in that I was guilty of error, now by avoiding it let it be neither yours nor mine." -St. Augustine "De Trinitate" 3.1
Read it for yourself, here
Showing posts with label St. Augustine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label St. Augustine. Show all posts
Friday, December 30, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
A Photograph of Two Great Christian Adulterers
I was trying to explain to someone the other day that a person's sin is no reason to discount their theology.
These two men were both great Christian thinkers and witnesses, and yes, there is substantial evidence that both of them had mistresses / cheated on their wives.
If only I could find a picture of these two with Fr. Karl Rahner (though apparently he was technically a fornicator, and his mistress was an adulteress), then we'd have all 3 of them.
The great other exception is of course St. Augustine, who had multiple concubines, once for over a decade.
Of course, we are not good, because of our righteousness, but because of Christ. After all, concerning the so-called "free" will, St. Augustine wrote:
"Behold what damage the disobedience of the will has inflicted on man's nature! Let him be permitted to pray that he may be healed! Why need he [Pelagius] presume so much on the capacity of his nature? It is wounded, hurt, damaged, destroyed. It is a true confession of its weakness, not a false defence of its capacity, that it stands in need of." - St. Augustine (On Nature and Grace, 62.)
And as the very traditional Catholic legend goes, the saints rejoice in Heaven over their sins, because they were opportunities for the abundance of God's grace to shine through.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Random Augustine
"[Referring to a Psalm]...For by "spontaneous rain" nothing else is meant than grace, not rendered to merit, but given freely, whence also it is called grace; for He gave it, not because we were worthy, but because He willed. And knowing this, we shall not trust in ourselves; and this is to be made "weak." But He Himself makes us perfect, who says also to the Apostle Paul, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my strength is made perfect in weakness." Man, then, was to be persuaded how much God loved us, and what manner of men we were whom He loved; the former, lest we should despair; the latter, lest we should be proud. And this most necessary topic the apostle thus explains: "But God commends," he says, "His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." Romans 5:8-10— Donavit Also in another place: "What," he says, "shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how has He not with Him also freely given us all things?" Now that which is declared to us as already done, was shown also to the ancient righteous as about to be done; that through the same faith they themselves also might be humbled, and so made weak; and might be made weak, and so perfected." - St. Augustine, On the Trinity, Book IV, ch. 1
Nothing particularly polemical here, just a quote I enjoyed.
Nothing particularly polemical here, just a quote I enjoyed.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Election
"He made us to believe in Christ, who made for us a Christ on whom we believe. He makes in men the beginning and the completion of the faith in Jesus who made the man Jesus the beginner and finisher of faith" - St. Augustine of Hippo (The Predestination of the Saints 31).
When I read that quote, I almost thought it was Calvin. Catholics generally abhor the doctrine of predestination, and ever since Augusti--err Jansenism was condemned, it's been almost impossible for Catholics to even mention predestination without getting knocked out and mysteriously waking up in a locked cell next to a pile of Molina's works. That might be a little exaggerated... As a one-time Calvinist (this blog testifies to that), I personally/existentially find predestination to be perhaps the most comforting doctrine ever proclaimed.
As one commenter noted, Catholics traditionally have found comfort in the notion of the gift of perseverance (as have Calvinists), except that after Trent, it has been heretical to claim you know with any certainty that you are elected (which now makes it fun to exegete St. Paul's "For I am Certain"). Anyway, perhaps we'll rehearse this debate over again and I'll read some more Augustine (which is never a bad thing).
My theology reminds me of Nietzsche's cosmology, a continual meaningless repetition of the same thing over and over for a presumed infinite time, but only consisting of finite materials, or like Camus' take on the Myth of Sisyphus, rolling the ball up the hill for eternity, only to have it roll back down and start over again.
lord have mercy.
When I read that quote, I almost thought it was Calvin. Catholics generally abhor the doctrine of predestination, and ever since Augusti--err Jansenism was condemned, it's been almost impossible for Catholics to even mention predestination without getting knocked out and mysteriously waking up in a locked cell next to a pile of Molina's works. That might be a little exaggerated... As a one-time Calvinist (this blog testifies to that), I personally/existentially find predestination to be perhaps the most comforting doctrine ever proclaimed.
As one commenter noted, Catholics traditionally have found comfort in the notion of the gift of perseverance (as have Calvinists), except that after Trent, it has been heretical to claim you know with any certainty that you are elected (which now makes it fun to exegete St. Paul's "For I am Certain"). Anyway, perhaps we'll rehearse this debate over again and I'll read some more Augustine (which is never a bad thing).
My theology reminds me of Nietzsche's cosmology, a continual meaningless repetition of the same thing over and over for a presumed infinite time, but only consisting of finite materials, or like Camus' take on the Myth of Sisyphus, rolling the ball up the hill for eternity, only to have it roll back down and start over again.
lord have mercy.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Why Luther and I Think Calvin Is Wrong About The Eucharist
Ascension doesn't pose a problem unless you're a modernist who doesn't believe Jesus actually multiplied the loaves and fish in the feeding miracles, God can create as much of his body as he wants (which I'm sure is what GODzilla's redemptive message was). As well we can choose to or not to heed St. Augustine's warning that it is dangerous to think too greatly about the Ascension (and he didn't even know about the stratosphere, space, etc).
But to add more Augustine:
"For just as he remained with us even after his ascension, so we too are already in heaven with him, even though what is promised us has not yet been fulfilled in our bodies.
Christ is now exalted above the heavens, but he still suffers on earth all the pain that we, the members of his body, have to bear. He showed this when he cried out from above: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? and when he said: I was hungry and you gave me food.
Why do we on earth not strive to find rest with him in heaven even now, through the faith, hope and love that unites us to him? While in heaven he is also with us; and we while on earth are with him." - St. Augustine of Hippo "Sermon on the Feast of the Ascension)
This however is my argument that oldest and most hated of Christian arguments: It's a mystery!
Luther's response is much more Biblical and difficult to refute:
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" - 1 Corinthians 10:16
Now unless St. Paul was really throwing us through a loop and the rhetorical answer was "no" it would appear that all Calvinist and Zwinglian interpretations which basically make it the Holy Spirit are at a loss here. It's the communion of the BODY and BLOOD of Christ NOT the SPIRIT of Christ. There. don't blame me, blame Sts. Paul, Augustine, and (un-st. ?) Martin Luther, and possibly God.
But to add more Augustine:
"For just as he remained with us even after his ascension, so we too are already in heaven with him, even though what is promised us has not yet been fulfilled in our bodies.
Christ is now exalted above the heavens, but he still suffers on earth all the pain that we, the members of his body, have to bear. He showed this when he cried out from above: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? and when he said: I was hungry and you gave me food.
Why do we on earth not strive to find rest with him in heaven even now, through the faith, hope and love that unites us to him? While in heaven he is also with us; and we while on earth are with him." - St. Augustine of Hippo "Sermon on the Feast of the Ascension)
This however is my argument that oldest and most hated of Christian arguments: It's a mystery!
Luther's response is much more Biblical and difficult to refute:
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" - 1 Corinthians 10:16
Now unless St. Paul was really throwing us through a loop and the rhetorical answer was "no" it would appear that all Calvinist and Zwinglian interpretations which basically make it the Holy Spirit are at a loss here. It's the communion of the BODY and BLOOD of Christ NOT the SPIRIT of Christ. There. don't blame me, blame Sts. Paul, Augustine, and (un-st. ?) Martin Luther, and possibly God.
Friday, September 25, 2009
St. Augustine Against The "Unintelligence" (his word not mine) of Faith Alone
"Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: “We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law,” have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed “a vessel of election” by the apostle, who, after declaring that “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision,” adds at once, “But faith working through love” … Therefore they possess not the faith by which the just man lives – the faith which works by love in such wise, that God recompenses it according to its works with eternal life … And the apostle himself, after saying, “By grace ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast;” saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them; and again, the possibility of men’s boasting of their good works, as if they were of themselves capable of performing them. To meet, therefore, these opinions on both sides, he immediately added, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” … It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God’s grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God … Grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God “shall reward every man according to his works.”" - St. Augustine "On Grace and Free Will" (Ch. 18-20)
For a good blog regarding this see: http://nealjudisch.blogspot.com/2009/01/colson-on-benedict-on-luther-why.html
For a good blog regarding this see: http://nealjudisch.blogspot.com/2009/01/colson-on-benedict-on-luther-why.html
If St. Augustine Was Wrong...
This is my Opinion on the matter not a scholarly argument etc. Just bear that in mind when you comment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Catholic patristic scholars since the 1560s have been showing that the Council of Trent's doctrine of justification is the same doctrine of justification held by St. Augustine of Hippo.
"the righteousness of God,— not that whereby He is Himself righteous, but that with which He endows man when He justifies the ungodly." - St. Augustine "On the Spirit and the Letter" Chapter 15
is the constant definition used. Now some folks like Alister McGrath say that poor Augustine didn't have Erasmus' Greek Manuscript (which had mistranslations of it's own) and that iustificare isn't the same as logozomai etc. Basically to short it to the point of triviality: Augustine was wrong, Luther was right. (Ironically another member of McGrath's church has argued that both Augustine and Luther are wrong (N.T. Wright), but there's the "perspicuity of scripture" for you)
But anyone who has read the wikipedia article on Augustine could tell you if Augustine was wrong, pardon my Anglo-Saxon but... Western Christianity is fucked, God is dead, etc...
If the Church which labelled itself as Augustinian for over a millenia was wrong about Original Sin, Predestination, Salvation, Pelagianism, Donatism, etc. Then God's Spirit is so impotent at leading the Church that there's no point in even believing.
That's my opinion. And if you think the Church was wrong about salvation for 1200 years then you might as well just become an Anabaptist and make it 1500 years, or a Mormon and make it 1800 years. Heck why not start your own church and just believe EVERYONE was wrong and it's actually justification by extrinsic interpretative-danced righteousness.
Finally: to Protestants, please give up the title Augustinian if you're just going to say he was wrong about salvation, you can't just pick and choose, even Luther said later in life that reading the bible through the interpretation of Augustine was like pouring milk through a bag of coal. So keep the title and accept infused righteousness, or give it up and keep imputed righteousness...or just remain keep your illogical idea that Augustine somehow taught what Luther taught even though he openly repudiated your doctrines.
I'm gonna regret posting this as all the Reformed will start attacking me like a Jew in the Gaza strip....and if any Jews read this I'm gonna regret posting this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Catholic patristic scholars since the 1560s have been showing that the Council of Trent's doctrine of justification is the same doctrine of justification held by St. Augustine of Hippo.
"the righteousness of God,— not that whereby He is Himself righteous, but that with which He endows man when He justifies the ungodly." - St. Augustine "On the Spirit and the Letter" Chapter 15
is the constant definition used. Now some folks like Alister McGrath say that poor Augustine didn't have Erasmus' Greek Manuscript (which had mistranslations of it's own) and that iustificare isn't the same as logozomai etc. Basically to short it to the point of triviality: Augustine was wrong, Luther was right. (Ironically another member of McGrath's church has argued that both Augustine and Luther are wrong (N.T. Wright), but there's the "perspicuity of scripture" for you)
But anyone who has read the wikipedia article on Augustine could tell you if Augustine was wrong, pardon my Anglo-Saxon but... Western Christianity is fucked, God is dead, etc...
If the Church which labelled itself as Augustinian for over a millenia was wrong about Original Sin, Predestination, Salvation, Pelagianism, Donatism, etc. Then God's Spirit is so impotent at leading the Church that there's no point in even believing.
That's my opinion. And if you think the Church was wrong about salvation for 1200 years then you might as well just become an Anabaptist and make it 1500 years, or a Mormon and make it 1800 years. Heck why not start your own church and just believe EVERYONE was wrong and it's actually justification by extrinsic interpretative-danced righteousness.
Finally: to Protestants, please give up the title Augustinian if you're just going to say he was wrong about salvation, you can't just pick and choose, even Luther said later in life that reading the bible through the interpretation of Augustine was like pouring milk through a bag of coal. So keep the title and accept infused righteousness, or give it up and keep imputed righteousness...or just remain keep your illogical idea that Augustine somehow taught what Luther taught even though he openly repudiated your doctrines.
I'm gonna regret posting this as all the Reformed will start attacking me like a Jew in the Gaza strip....and if any Jews read this I'm gonna regret posting this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friday, September 18, 2009
"We Don't Have Time For The Bible"
This is a paraphrase of something my friend Lance's dean said in their theology class at his Lutheran seminary. The man who said it studied under Alister McGrath and is an expert on Theodore Beza and "Protestant Scholasticism". I think it is a very true when it comes to Historical Theology.
I've been a Reformed Christian (for a short but happy time) and I've used Romans 3 and 9-11 to justify everything.
I've been an Anabaptist (Arminian) and used 1 Timothy 2, and 2 Peter 3:9, etc to justify everything.
I'm currently a Roman Catholic Christian and use Matthew 16 and 1 Tim 3:15 and 1 Cor 11:2, etc to justify everything.
I've been an Anglican and used my Refomed and Catholic prooftexts to justify that as well.
This is why I want to study St. Augustine, because I don't even know what to believe anymore, theology has just become an assortment of prooftexts that are crammed into a system created by a dead 16th century person. Then you name yourself after them and attack other people with different dead men.
So my only option is to find the right dead man. And everyone's dead men seem to agree that St. Augustine of Hippo was the best dead man, so I want to study him.
I've been a Reformed Christian (for a short but happy time) and I've used Romans 3 and 9-11 to justify everything.
I've been an Anabaptist (Arminian) and used 1 Timothy 2, and 2 Peter 3:9, etc to justify everything.
I'm currently a Roman Catholic Christian and use Matthew 16 and 1 Tim 3:15 and 1 Cor 11:2, etc to justify everything.
I've been an Anglican and used my Refomed and Catholic prooftexts to justify that as well.
This is why I want to study St. Augustine, because I don't even know what to believe anymore, theology has just become an assortment of prooftexts that are crammed into a system created by a dead 16th century person. Then you name yourself after them and attack other people with different dead men.
So my only option is to find the right dead man. And everyone's dead men seem to agree that St. Augustine of Hippo was the best dead man, so I want to study him.
Catholic Soteriology summed up fairly easily
on this website I found a typical summation of Catholic soteriology called "A Catholic understanding of how grace saves" : http://evangelical-catholicism.blogspot.com/2006/09/catholic-understanding-of-how-grace.html
It seems to still be suspect to my observation that this means that grace is just the ability to do good works and merit salvation, not the absolution of sins or forgiveness which the Reformers taught it was (and which I feel in my heart more partial to still).
To me the issue no Catholic theologians want to touch is sin in the believer. Luther said "when God saves a man he doesn't do it in heaps", and if this is his characterization of Catholicism, then it's kind of true. Catholicism doesn't call Concupiscence Sin and I think has failed to understand what every priest understands: that the average Christian, is a sinner with faith and repentance, not an intrinsically righteous transformed and angelic being.
Hopefully reading some St. Augustine, De Lubac, and Von Balthasar on this will clear some stuff up.
It seems to still be suspect to my observation that this means that grace is just the ability to do good works and merit salvation, not the absolution of sins or forgiveness which the Reformers taught it was (and which I feel in my heart more partial to still).
To me the issue no Catholic theologians want to touch is sin in the believer. Luther said "when God saves a man he doesn't do it in heaps", and if this is his characterization of Catholicism, then it's kind of true. Catholicism doesn't call Concupiscence Sin and I think has failed to understand what every priest understands: that the average Christian, is a sinner with faith and repentance, not an intrinsically righteous transformed and angelic being.
Hopefully reading some St. Augustine, De Lubac, and Von Balthasar on this will clear some stuff up.
Augustinian Soteriology
In an attempt to gain an Augustinian understanding of soteriology I'm planning on reading "On the Spirit and the Letter" ...but not in Latin. I just started skimming already this morning and found two passages interesting and almost contradictory:
"What, however, is the spirit of this world, but the spirit of pride? ... they too are deceived, who, while ignorant of the righteousness of God, and wishing to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to God's righteousness...we conclude that a man is not justified by the precepts of a holy life, but by faith in Jesus Christ—in a word, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith; not by the letter, but by the spirit; not by the merits of deeds, but by free grace." - Chapter 22, "On the Spirit and the Letter"
Now this is probably quoted in the Formulas of Concord or something and sounds REALLY Lutheran, but look at the next quote:
"Now He that has wrought us for the self-same thing is God, who also has given unto us the earnest of the Spirit; 2 Corinthians 5:5 and after a little he thus briefly draws the conclusion of the matter: That we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Corinthians 5:21 This is not the righteousness whereby God is Himself righteous, but that whereby we are made righteous by Him." - Chapter 31 "On the Letter and the Spirit, St. Augustine of Hippo
That is a passage the Council of Trent quotes on Justification against the Lutheran doctrine of Imputed Righteousness.
So what the Hell is St. Augustine trying to say?! I'm going to try to figure out... and if he teaches Luther's view of Justification I'll leave the Roman church, but for some strange reason, I don't think he's going to. Knowing my luck, he'll teach some weird hybrid of both that will leave me forever guessing.
The next book I'll have to read after this is Henri De Lubac's "Augustinianism and Modern Theology" where he critiques both Jansenism and (I think) St. Thomas Aquinas doctrines that seem to be "pure nature" without grace.
"What, however, is the spirit of this world, but the spirit of pride? ... they too are deceived, who, while ignorant of the righteousness of God, and wishing to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to God's righteousness...we conclude that a man is not justified by the precepts of a holy life, but by faith in Jesus Christ—in a word, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith; not by the letter, but by the spirit; not by the merits of deeds, but by free grace." - Chapter 22, "On the Spirit and the Letter"
Now this is probably quoted in the Formulas of Concord or something and sounds REALLY Lutheran, but look at the next quote:
"Now He that has wrought us for the self-same thing is God, who also has given unto us the earnest of the Spirit; 2 Corinthians 5:5 and after a little he thus briefly draws the conclusion of the matter: That we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Corinthians 5:21 This is not the righteousness whereby God is Himself righteous, but that whereby we are made righteous by Him." - Chapter 31 "On the Letter and the Spirit, St. Augustine of Hippo
That is a passage the Council of Trent quotes on Justification against the Lutheran doctrine of Imputed Righteousness.
So what the Hell is St. Augustine trying to say?! I'm going to try to figure out... and if he teaches Luther's view of Justification I'll leave the Roman church, but for some strange reason, I don't think he's going to. Knowing my luck, he'll teach some weird hybrid of both that will leave me forever guessing.
The next book I'll have to read after this is Henri De Lubac's "Augustinianism and Modern Theology" where he critiques both Jansenism and (I think) St. Thomas Aquinas doctrines that seem to be "pure nature" without grace.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Tonight At Bible Study...
Tonight I was at bible study with a fellow Roman Catholic. We were studying St. John's Gospel 11-14 and when he was asking about mortal sin and contrition, after outlining what the Catechism taught on the subject I just said "we can't even know our own contrition and whether it is perfect or not, as all human love is in some way self-interested" or something to that extent. I looked it up in Pelikan's Reformation history and that was a preliminary thesis of Martin Luther against Penance/Confession and the same idea that Abp of Canterbury Rowan Williams taught in his sermon on loving God and why the Catholic doctrine of "Pure Love" was wrong.
I told him that Scripture is all about Law and Gospel and that the Law is supposed to bring us to repentance knowing that there's no way we can earn our way to Heaven, and that the Catholic theology of the cross was empty and that Catholicism glorifies and protects "Free Will" to the point of idolatry and that this is the Jesuits fault. So basically I taught Lutheranism and Jansenism, I don't know what's happening to me.
I also said that God didn't have to respect anyone's free will when we discussed Judas and that he was an unelect reprobate whom God had not chosen and had been a thief anyway and that when he took communion it said "satan entered him" and that when we take communion unworthily (I might've said 'when the reprobate' take communion) it is drinking God's wrath upon themselves (Jared's/Reformed theology).
I mocked the necessity of Marian Dogmas and said they were superfluous.
I told him that all the canon law in the world was meaningless if we didn't have a positive and living faith rather than just a set of rules.
I've been hugely influenced by Luther's dichotemy of the Theologian of Glory versus the Theologian of the Cross.
I'm still a Catholic I guess, and I can refute all of my own arguments. But it just made me sick to think how unsure our salvation is in Catholic soteriology, how all of it depends on man's will and not God's grace. Even now I could argue against it in my head with Catholic/Arminian prooftexts but it just feels wrong. In the end I just want to have the Christianity of St. Augustine...
Sorry I'm probably committing the sin of scandal, and making the Catholics angry, but such is the reality of my life, I'm constantly unable to figure out how on earth I'll ever be sure about my theology...at least I know I'll never be an Anabaptist again.
I think I was just really tired, and the fact is that I read and heard so much from Reformed, Arminian, Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic, and Orthodox sources that they all start to blend and make sense in their own ways and I lose my dogmatism.
I took some theology tests and I got St. Augustine as my #1 and then Karl Barth (whom I've never read).
I told him that Scripture is all about Law and Gospel and that the Law is supposed to bring us to repentance knowing that there's no way we can earn our way to Heaven, and that the Catholic theology of the cross was empty and that Catholicism glorifies and protects "Free Will" to the point of idolatry and that this is the Jesuits fault. So basically I taught Lutheranism and Jansenism, I don't know what's happening to me.
I also said that God didn't have to respect anyone's free will when we discussed Judas and that he was an unelect reprobate whom God had not chosen and had been a thief anyway and that when he took communion it said "satan entered him" and that when we take communion unworthily (I might've said 'when the reprobate' take communion) it is drinking God's wrath upon themselves (Jared's/Reformed theology).
I mocked the necessity of Marian Dogmas and said they were superfluous.
I told him that all the canon law in the world was meaningless if we didn't have a positive and living faith rather than just a set of rules.
I've been hugely influenced by Luther's dichotemy of the Theologian of Glory versus the Theologian of the Cross.
I'm still a Catholic I guess, and I can refute all of my own arguments. But it just made me sick to think how unsure our salvation is in Catholic soteriology, how all of it depends on man's will and not God's grace. Even now I could argue against it in my head with Catholic/Arminian prooftexts but it just feels wrong. In the end I just want to have the Christianity of St. Augustine...
Sorry I'm probably committing the sin of scandal, and making the Catholics angry, but such is the reality of my life, I'm constantly unable to figure out how on earth I'll ever be sure about my theology...at least I know I'll never be an Anabaptist again.
I think I was just really tired, and the fact is that I read and heard so much from Reformed, Arminian, Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic, and Orthodox sources that they all start to blend and make sense in their own ways and I lose my dogmatism.
I took some theology tests and I got St. Augustine as my #1 and then Karl Barth (whom I've never read).
Monday, August 31, 2009
Cardinal Newman on Luther and St. Augustine's Opposition
"The main point is whether the Moral Law can in its substance be obeyed and kept by the regenerate. Augustine says, that whereas we are by nature condemned by the Law, we are enabled by the grace of God to perform it unto our justification; Luther [and Calvin equally] that, whereas we are condemned by the law, Christ has Himself performed it unto our justification — Augustine, that our righteousness is active; Luther, that it is passive; Augustine, that it is imparted, Luther that it is only imputed; Augustine, that it consists in a change of heart; Luther, in a change of state. Luther maintains that God's commandments are impossible to man Augustine adds, impossible without His grace; Luther that the Gospel consists of promises only Augustine, that it is also a law, Luther, that our highest wisdom is not to know the Law, Augustine says instead, to know and keep it — Luther says, that the Law and Christ cannot dwell together in the heart. Augustine says that the Law is Christ; Luther denies and Augustine maintains that obedience is a matter of conscience. Luther says that a man is made a Christian not by working but by hearing; Augustine excludes those works only which are done before grace is given; Luther, that our best deeds are sins; Augustine, that they are really pleasing to God" - Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman (Lectures on Justification, ch. ii, 58)
Friday, August 28, 2009
Feast of St. Augustine of Hippo
Happy Feast of St. Augustine. I went to two masses this morning and the one in english talked alot about him. I hadn't known that he fathered a child (according to the priest). I'll have to check that out to see if it's dubious. I hope more people are drawn to the teaching of the doctor of grace, he is a theologian who could bring unity to Western Christendom.
Here are some quotes I found of his today that I liked:
"There is no saint without a past, no sinner without a future."
"Christ is not valued at all, unless he is valued above all."
"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it. "
"It is not that we keep His commandments first and that then He loves but that He loves us and then we keep His commandments. This is that grace which is revealed to the humble but hidden from the proud."
St. Augustine pray for the destruction of Pelagianism, Manicheeism, and Donatism in Christ's Church. Amen.
Here are some quotes I found of his today that I liked:
"There is no saint without a past, no sinner without a future."
"Christ is not valued at all, unless he is valued above all."
"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it. "
"It is not that we keep His commandments first and that then He loves but that He loves us and then we keep His commandments. This is that grace which is revealed to the humble but hidden from the proud."
St. Augustine pray for the destruction of Pelagianism, Manicheeism, and Donatism in Christ's Church. Amen.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
ELCA accepts Homosexuality, Romans 1, and Avoiding Sin
I had written this long triumphalistic post about how much better Catholicism was than Protestantism because of this decision and how bankrupt Protestant Moral Theology was, but then I deleted it, realizing that the destruction of another ecclesial community isn't something to be celebrated (unless they're returning to the one Church).
http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/08/20/the-elca-formally-endorses-homosexuality-how-to-respond/
The ELCA has joined the ranks of the Episcopal Church (with whom they are in full communion) and allowed homosexuality as a Christian lifestyle.
Lord have mercy...
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practise such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practise them." - Romans 1:18-32
This is actually one of my favourite passages in the Bible because it so clearly outlines Natural Theology (v. 20) and the universal guilt of humanity. Romans 1 is what the world needs to hear today. and the tradition of Catholic spirituality focuses so much on avoiding both sin and the 'near occasion' of sin because of this deep truth. It's an important part of Augustinian Christianity:
"God, O Lord, grant me the power to overcome sin. For this is what you gave to us when you granted us free choice of will. If I choose wrongly, then I shall be justly punished for it. Is that not true, my Lord, of whom I indebted for my temporal existence? Thank you, Lord, for granting me the power to will my self not to sin."
-St. Augustine
Living in sin is living in falsehood, it is exchanging the truth for a lie.
May God's grace lead us to Sacred Scripture and the Church of Christ and aid us in exchanging the lies in our life for the truth of God. May God's grace turn us to Christ, lead us to repent of our sin, and follow in the grace of the Spirit the command to "Go your way, and from now on do not sin" (Jn 8:11)
http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/08/20/the-elca-formally-endorses-homosexuality-how-to-respond/
The ELCA has joined the ranks of the Episcopal Church (with whom they are in full communion) and allowed homosexuality as a Christian lifestyle.
Lord have mercy...
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practise such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practise them." - Romans 1:18-32
This is actually one of my favourite passages in the Bible because it so clearly outlines Natural Theology (v. 20) and the universal guilt of humanity. Romans 1 is what the world needs to hear today. and the tradition of Catholic spirituality focuses so much on avoiding both sin and the 'near occasion' of sin because of this deep truth. It's an important part of Augustinian Christianity:
"God, O Lord, grant me the power to overcome sin. For this is what you gave to us when you granted us free choice of will. If I choose wrongly, then I shall be justly punished for it. Is that not true, my Lord, of whom I indebted for my temporal existence? Thank you, Lord, for granting me the power to will my self not to sin."
-St. Augustine
Living in sin is living in falsehood, it is exchanging the truth for a lie.
May God's grace lead us to Sacred Scripture and the Church of Christ and aid us in exchanging the lies in our life for the truth of God. May God's grace turn us to Christ, lead us to repent of our sin, and follow in the grace of the Spirit the command to "Go your way, and from now on do not sin" (Jn 8:11)
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Oh what a friend we have in Pelikan
So I finally got my volumes 3 and 4 of "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine" and have been flying through volume 3. In less than a day I'm on page 130 of 307 and I am enjoying it alot, but it scares me because it's so challenging, I'm realizing that my "education" in medieval and late medieval history that I received at university was almost nothing more than Modern Humanist Propoganda. I also learned that Roman Catholic attitudes that Protestantism is COMPLETELY innovative are also incorrect.
Don't Sweat the Small Stuff
In complete honesty Pelikan I find is very fair, but does clearly read like an Orthodox Christian who was educated by Lutherans. My bold assertion there is based on a few facts. He likes to point out the Western acceptance of the filioque as kind of a universal 'accident' and talks about how the West (Anselm particularly) F-ed up Christology pertaining to the 2 wills of Christ. He also talks about the "seeds" of the Lutheran Law-Gospel distinction in the 10th century preaching of "consolation and warning" and the "two-fold fashion" and sacramental nature of preaching. So yes he seems very fair, but it's just interesting to note those hints of the traditions he's most familiar with. (I think he's awesome I'm not trying to call him biased).
There's Something about Augustine:
His story-like telling of the history of Western Dogma is very kindred of my favourite historians who at the price of possibly over-simplifying, commit the sin of "making History interesting" by telling it as a narrative (Gibbon's account of the Roman Empire was the same). But the narrative seems to be all about St. Augustine of Hippo. Augustine is always the source and summit (to borrow the phrase on the Eucharist from the Catholic Catechism) of theology. Everyone is always fighting about Augustine and the story which ends up as a tragedy with the Reformation seems to be all because of Augustine. Pelikan's Lutheranism also is evident in his constant affirmations that the catholic faith was always "prima scriptura" scripture as the highest authority followed by the fathers (mostly Augustine) and then reason.
So it seems VERY interesting to me to know more about Pelikan's conversion as he had spent so much time studying the West and how to become East Orthodox you ultimately have to say that this whole Augustinian school of thought that becomes the centre of every debate was just wrong from the start. Original Sin is untrue, Predestination is only a mystery, etc. I really need to buy his volume on the East.
What's it to Me?
The interesting thing is seeing his sort of commentary on authentic developments and inauthentic developments of tradition. For example he seems to be completely Orthodox in his assessment in this book. He notes wherever the supremacy of Peter or the Papacy is called into question but unlike a Lutheran, he always asserts that it was the bishops who held this equal authority with Peter having Primacy but not Supremacy (a very Orthodox assertion). He also always notes that the belief in Justification by faith alone was an innovation and not to be found in medieval teaching (a very non-Lutheran assertion). But he also talks about penance and the penitential system with great disdain (a very Orthodox and Lutheran assertion), and talks about the constant belief in the objective efficacy of the sacraments (an everyone but Reformed and Anabaptist assertion).
So maybe he's just recording history. I'm just too stuck in polemics. It's great to have a challenge though. During this whole conversion process things would've been much better if people told me to read more Church History and used more Church History to sway me. Oh well, nothing is set in stone, it's good to have this 'dead theologian' Pelikan to 'dialogue' with through his writings, perhaps if I ever gain Slavic citizenship the Orthodox might eventually consider me worthy of attending their eucharistic celebrations and I could see what he was 'on about'.
Don't Sweat the Small Stuff
In complete honesty Pelikan I find is very fair, but does clearly read like an Orthodox Christian who was educated by Lutherans. My bold assertion there is based on a few facts. He likes to point out the Western acceptance of the filioque as kind of a universal 'accident' and talks about how the West (Anselm particularly) F-ed up Christology pertaining to the 2 wills of Christ. He also talks about the "seeds" of the Lutheran Law-Gospel distinction in the 10th century preaching of "consolation and warning" and the "two-fold fashion" and sacramental nature of preaching. So yes he seems very fair, but it's just interesting to note those hints of the traditions he's most familiar with. (I think he's awesome I'm not trying to call him biased).
There's Something about Augustine:
His story-like telling of the history of Western Dogma is very kindred of my favourite historians who at the price of possibly over-simplifying, commit the sin of "making History interesting" by telling it as a narrative (Gibbon's account of the Roman Empire was the same). But the narrative seems to be all about St. Augustine of Hippo. Augustine is always the source and summit (to borrow the phrase on the Eucharist from the Catholic Catechism) of theology. Everyone is always fighting about Augustine and the story which ends up as a tragedy with the Reformation seems to be all because of Augustine. Pelikan's Lutheranism also is evident in his constant affirmations that the catholic faith was always "prima scriptura" scripture as the highest authority followed by the fathers (mostly Augustine) and then reason.
So it seems VERY interesting to me to know more about Pelikan's conversion as he had spent so much time studying the West and how to become East Orthodox you ultimately have to say that this whole Augustinian school of thought that becomes the centre of every debate was just wrong from the start. Original Sin is untrue, Predestination is only a mystery, etc. I really need to buy his volume on the East.
What's it to Me?
The interesting thing is seeing his sort of commentary on authentic developments and inauthentic developments of tradition. For example he seems to be completely Orthodox in his assessment in this book. He notes wherever the supremacy of Peter or the Papacy is called into question but unlike a Lutheran, he always asserts that it was the bishops who held this equal authority with Peter having Primacy but not Supremacy (a very Orthodox assertion). He also always notes that the belief in Justification by faith alone was an innovation and not to be found in medieval teaching (a very non-Lutheran assertion). But he also talks about penance and the penitential system with great disdain (a very Orthodox and Lutheran assertion), and talks about the constant belief in the objective efficacy of the sacraments (an everyone but Reformed and Anabaptist assertion).
So maybe he's just recording history. I'm just too stuck in polemics. It's great to have a challenge though. During this whole conversion process things would've been much better if people told me to read more Church History and used more Church History to sway me. Oh well, nothing is set in stone, it's good to have this 'dead theologian' Pelikan to 'dialogue' with through his writings, perhaps if I ever gain Slavic citizenship the Orthodox might eventually consider me worthy of attending their eucharistic celebrations and I could see what he was 'on about'.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Augustine and Chrysostom on John 1:12
I'm doing a bible study on John's Gospel tonight and I was reading some of the Patristic commentaries and I found these two quotes on John 1:12 - a verse I had to memorize in bible school:
"But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God." - John 1:12
"all, He says, are deemed worthy the same privilege; for faith and the grace of the Spirit, removing the inequality caused by worldly things, has moulded all to one fashion, and stamped them with one impress, the King's. What can equal this lovingkindness? A king, who is framed of the same clay with us, does not deign to enrol among the royal host his fellow-servants, who share the same nature with himself, and in character often are better than he, if they chance to be slaves; but the Only-Begotten Son of God did not disdain to reckon among the company of His children both publicans, sorcerers, and slaves, nay, men of less repute and greater poverty than these, maimed in body, and suffering from ten thousand ills. Such is the power of faith in Him, such the excess of His grace. And as the element of fire, when it meets with ore from the mine, straightway of earth makes it gold, even so and much more Baptism makes those who are washed to be of gold instead of clay; the Spirit at that time falling like fire into our souls, burning up the image of the earthy (1 Corinthians 15:49), and producing the image of the heavenly, fresh coined, bright and glittering, as from the furnace-mould." - St. John Chrysostom Homily 10 on the Gospel of John
"But John adds: As many as received Him. What did He afford to them? Great benevolence! Great mercy! He was born the only Son of God, and was unwilling to remain alone. Many men, when they have not sons, in advanced age adopt a son, and thus obtain by an exercise of will what nature has denied to them: this men do. But if any one have an only son, he rejoices the more in him; because he alone will possess everything, and he will not have any one to divide with him the inheritance, so that he should be poorer. Not so God: that same only Son whom He had begotten, and by whom He created all things, He sent into this world that He might not be alone, but might have adopted brethren. For we were not born of God in the manner in which the Only-begotten was born of Him, but were adopted by His grace. For He, the Only-begotten, came to loose the sins in which we were entangled, and whose burden hindered our adoption: those whom He wished to make brethren to Himself, He Himself loosed, and made joint-heirs. ...He did not fear to have joint-heirs, because His heritage does not become narrow if many are possessors. Those very persons, He being possessor, become His inheritance, and He in turn becomes their inheritance. Hear in what manner they become His inheritance: "The Lord has said unto me, You are my Son, this day have I begotten You. Ask of me, and I will give You the nations for Your inheritance". Hear in what manner He becomes their inheritance. He says in the Psalms: "The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance, and of my cup". Let us possess Him, and let Him possess us: let Him possess us as Lord; let us possess Him as salvation, let us possess Him as light. What then did He give to them who received Him? To them He gave power to become sons of God, even to them that believe in His name; that they may cling to the wood and cross the sea." - St. Augustine of Hippo Tractate 2, On the Gospel of John, 13.
"But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God." - John 1:12
"all, He says, are deemed worthy the same privilege; for faith and the grace of the Spirit, removing the inequality caused by worldly things, has moulded all to one fashion, and stamped them with one impress, the King's. What can equal this lovingkindness? A king, who is framed of the same clay with us, does not deign to enrol among the royal host his fellow-servants, who share the same nature with himself, and in character often are better than he, if they chance to be slaves; but the Only-Begotten Son of God did not disdain to reckon among the company of His children both publicans, sorcerers, and slaves, nay, men of less repute and greater poverty than these, maimed in body, and suffering from ten thousand ills. Such is the power of faith in Him, such the excess of His grace. And as the element of fire, when it meets with ore from the mine, straightway of earth makes it gold, even so and much more Baptism makes those who are washed to be of gold instead of clay; the Spirit at that time falling like fire into our souls, burning up the image of the earthy (1 Corinthians 15:49), and producing the image of the heavenly, fresh coined, bright and glittering, as from the furnace-mould." - St. John Chrysostom Homily 10 on the Gospel of John
"But John adds: As many as received Him. What did He afford to them? Great benevolence! Great mercy! He was born the only Son of God, and was unwilling to remain alone. Many men, when they have not sons, in advanced age adopt a son, and thus obtain by an exercise of will what nature has denied to them: this men do. But if any one have an only son, he rejoices the more in him; because he alone will possess everything, and he will not have any one to divide with him the inheritance, so that he should be poorer. Not so God: that same only Son whom He had begotten, and by whom He created all things, He sent into this world that He might not be alone, but might have adopted brethren. For we were not born of God in the manner in which the Only-begotten was born of Him, but were adopted by His grace. For He, the Only-begotten, came to loose the sins in which we were entangled, and whose burden hindered our adoption: those whom He wished to make brethren to Himself, He Himself loosed, and made joint-heirs. ...He did not fear to have joint-heirs, because His heritage does not become narrow if many are possessors. Those very persons, He being possessor, become His inheritance, and He in turn becomes their inheritance. Hear in what manner they become His inheritance: "The Lord has said unto me, You are my Son, this day have I begotten You. Ask of me, and I will give You the nations for Your inheritance". Hear in what manner He becomes their inheritance. He says in the Psalms: "The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance, and of my cup". Let us possess Him, and let Him possess us: let Him possess us as Lord; let us possess Him as salvation, let us possess Him as light. What then did He give to them who received Him? To them He gave power to become sons of God, even to them that believe in His name; that they may cling to the wood and cross the sea." - St. Augustine of Hippo Tractate 2, On the Gospel of John, 13.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Inclusivism, Arminianism, and other dirty words...(Romans 2-4)
I swear I'm going to die or get an ulcer from all of this justification debate / thinking stuff. ... Here we go again. So I've examined the argument for Romans 2-3
Catholics tend to only focus on "to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life" - 2:7, and the basic argument up to 3 is that good people get rewarded bad people get punished and St. Paul says "A person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter fo the heart - it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God" 2:29
So it is boastable (if that's a word). I think the fact that Paul talks SO much about boasting, it's important to gather that is an issue. So of this righteous gentile, this 'noble savage' who follows their conscience, God praises them. So they could boast, theoretically.
But.
St. Paul quickly adds in "both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin" (Romans 3:9) and then goes on a quote parade through the Old Testament (using the Septuagint ironically after he says "the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God" - St. Paul, a Jew outside Israel would probably have used the deuterocanonicals). Anyway, the point is he says "For 'no human being will be justified in his sight' by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin" 3:20
Then St. Paul goes on to explain Sola Fide which no one till Luther will understand or teach, but hey, he tried right?
Here's my problem: How is it that he says everyone is under the power of sin (original sin) and yet that those who act righteously are rewarded even without the law... now if all of this was just to teach Total Depravity, why Romans 2, why not just skip to 3.
Here's an additional problem when you flip through the Early Churches view of inclusivism v. exclusivism:
One of my favourite oft-quoted verses where St. Peter sees the Gentiles believe (Cornelius):
And in the Areopagus St. Paul says to the Athenian Philosophers:
Now it would appear that left right and centre the NT clearly affirms that there are Godly people who don't have the knowledge of the Gospel/Jesus, but are still doing good and apparently being Justified. And only Romans seems to paint this view that no one is righteous, no, not even one. ... So... How does this fit:
The Problem with Augustinian Soteriology:
The issue that all Augustinian Christians agree on (Reformed and Catholic) is that without grace, man can only choose sin. Original Sin, is the key doctrine we all hold, but here we have something completely out of the blue. People "under the power of sin" (Rom 3:9) acting righteously.
Have we been believing a sort of Augustine on steroids and ignored that the bible seems to indicate otherwise?
Are the Pelagian/East Orthodox Original sin deniers right?! Is it true as the Orthodox would have us believe that we don't really have Original Sin, but rather that man is in fear of death and that's what drives him to sin.
Are the Reformed right?
Well I'll be damned if St. Augustine the Inerrant will be scorned. The Reformed obviously hold that St. Paul was just pulling a Socrates and telling the Romans - 'sure all of you 'good people' will be saved..... oh ya... I forgot to tell you, that means NO ONE!!! ahahhaha - gotcha. So about Jesus..." , so if we're committed to the Augustinian ideal then there are a few options we have:
Solutions:
1. Arminianism/Molinism - Make like John Wesley/Molina and doublespeak our way out of it by saying that 'yes, man cannot do good without grace' ... did I mention that God has given grace to every person and that it's just resistible grace.
2. Resistible Sin: But the issue is, that Catholic or Protestant while we disagree about whether grace is irresistible, we all tend to believe in "Irresistible Sin" (my new phrase) whereby anyone without grace HAS to choose sin, when they open the fridge they can't choose Sunny D, but rather, always choose "purple stuff". So one option would be that even the reprobates can choose to reject sin and do good or bad, which basically is Pelagianism... ya.. I just figured that out now. So that's not really an option unless you're Episcopal.
3. Reformed Protestantism - By accepting Romans 3 as the trump of Romans 2 we are then left with the 'crazy idea' that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (where'd they get that one!?...quick don't read romans 3:23), and that apart from God's election, law or no law, you're damned. This of course would have to lead us to some sort of sola gratia & irresistible grace system without equivocation
But of course, sola fide, remains out, and if a Reformed Christian tells you to read Romans 4:1-8, tell him to read Romans 4:8-12, hand him a copy of "What St. Paul Really Meant" by N.T. Wright and ask him to explain why "law", "works", and "deeds" all seem to refer to the Mosaic covenant/circumcision. That'll keep em busy for a while.
But if you want the Patristic/Catholic account of Justification and this whole issue, just go to Dave Armstrong's post here of an entire exegesis of Romans 2-4 all in patristic commentary:http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/interpretation-exegesis-of-romans-2-4.html
when I read the theological gymnastics of it all, it makes my Baptist/Spider sense go off "traditions of men" "traditions of men" "traditions of men" ... man the Bible is completely confusing and unclear...
So in the end, the only coherent exegete it seems of this whole mess is Bishop Tom Wright of the Church of Henry VIII. Who woulda thunk it?
Catholics tend to only focus on "to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life" - 2:7, and the basic argument up to 3 is that good people get rewarded bad people get punished and St. Paul says "A person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter fo the heart - it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God" 2:29
So it is boastable (if that's a word). I think the fact that Paul talks SO much about boasting, it's important to gather that is an issue. So of this righteous gentile, this 'noble savage' who follows their conscience, God praises them. So they could boast, theoretically.
But.
St. Paul quickly adds in "both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin" (Romans 3:9) and then goes on a quote parade through the Old Testament (using the Septuagint ironically after he says "the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God" - St. Paul, a Jew outside Israel would probably have used the deuterocanonicals). Anyway, the point is he says "For 'no human being will be justified in his sight' by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin" 3:20
Then St. Paul goes on to explain Sola Fide which no one till Luther will understand or teach, but hey, he tried right?
Here's my problem: How is it that he says everyone is under the power of sin (original sin) and yet that those who act righteously are rewarded even without the law... now if all of this was just to teach Total Depravity, why Romans 2, why not just skip to 3.
Here's an additional problem when you flip through the Early Churches view of inclusivism v. exclusivism:
One of my favourite oft-quoted verses where St. Peter sees the Gentiles believe (Cornelius):
"I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nationSt. Paul in Lystra and Derbe, where they do a miracle and the pagan priests try to offer them a sacrifice:
anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him" - Acts
10:34-35
"turn from these worthless things to the living God...In past
generations he allowed all the nations to follow their own ways; yet he has
not left himself without a witness in doing good" - Acts 16:16
And in the Areopagus St. Paul says to the Athenian Philosophers:
"While God has overlooked the times of ignorance, now he
commands all people everywhere to repent" - Acts 17:30 (had to memorize this in
Bible School)
Now it would appear that left right and centre the NT clearly affirms that there are Godly people who don't have the knowledge of the Gospel/Jesus, but are still doing good and apparently being Justified. And only Romans seems to paint this view that no one is righteous, no, not even one. ... So... How does this fit:
The Problem with Augustinian Soteriology:
The issue that all Augustinian Christians agree on (Reformed and Catholic) is that without grace, man can only choose sin. Original Sin, is the key doctrine we all hold, but here we have something completely out of the blue. People "under the power of sin" (Rom 3:9) acting righteously.
Have we been believing a sort of Augustine on steroids and ignored that the bible seems to indicate otherwise?
Are the Pelagian/East Orthodox Original sin deniers right?! Is it true as the Orthodox would have us believe that we don't really have Original Sin, but rather that man is in fear of death and that's what drives him to sin.
Are the Reformed right?
Well I'll be damned if St. Augustine the Inerrant will be scorned. The Reformed obviously hold that St. Paul was just pulling a Socrates and telling the Romans - 'sure all of you 'good people' will be saved..... oh ya... I forgot to tell you, that means NO ONE!!! ahahhaha - gotcha. So about Jesus..." , so if we're committed to the Augustinian ideal then there are a few options we have:
Solutions:
1. Arminianism/Molinism - Make like John Wesley/Molina and doublespeak our way out of it by saying that 'yes, man cannot do good without grace' ... did I mention that God has given grace to every person and that it's just resistible grace.
2. Resistible Sin: But the issue is, that Catholic or Protestant while we disagree about whether grace is irresistible, we all tend to believe in "Irresistible Sin" (my new phrase) whereby anyone without grace HAS to choose sin, when they open the fridge they can't choose Sunny D, but rather, always choose "purple stuff". So one option would be that even the reprobates can choose to reject sin and do good or bad, which basically is Pelagianism... ya.. I just figured that out now. So that's not really an option unless you're Episcopal.
3. Reformed Protestantism - By accepting Romans 3 as the trump of Romans 2 we are then left with the 'crazy idea' that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (where'd they get that one!?...quick don't read romans 3:23), and that apart from God's election, law or no law, you're damned. This of course would have to lead us to some sort of sola gratia & irresistible grace system without equivocation
But of course, sola fide, remains out, and if a Reformed Christian tells you to read Romans 4:1-8, tell him to read Romans 4:8-12, hand him a copy of "What St. Paul Really Meant" by N.T. Wright and ask him to explain why "law", "works", and "deeds" all seem to refer to the Mosaic covenant/circumcision. That'll keep em busy for a while.
But if you want the Patristic/Catholic account of Justification and this whole issue, just go to Dave Armstrong's post here of an entire exegesis of Romans 2-4 all in patristic commentary:http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/interpretation-exegesis-of-romans-2-4.html
when I read the theological gymnastics of it all, it makes my Baptist/Spider sense go off "traditions of men" "traditions of men" "traditions of men" ... man the Bible is completely confusing and unclear...
So in the end, the only coherent exegete it seems of this whole mess is Bishop Tom Wright of the Church of Henry VIII. Who woulda thunk it?
Monday, April 6, 2009
Word and Sacrament Scripture and Patristics of the Day
"About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. Suddenly there was an earthquake, so violent that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were unfastened. When the jailer woke up and saw the prison doors wide open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, since he supposed that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul shouted in a loud voice, ‘Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.’ The jailer called for lights, and rushing in, he fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them outside and said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They answered, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’ They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay. He brought them up into the house and set food before them; and he and his entire household rejoiced that he had become a believer in God." Acts 16
I was always taught this passage as a quintessential message of salvation and I still always like to read "believe on" or "believeth on" rather than "believe in" because as one fundamentalist Baptist pastor explained to me, to believe in is to refer to yourself and your heart, to believe ON is to believe on what Jesus has already done on the cross. But as a Catholic I also like to see that St. Paul also had the sacramental side as well.
St. Augustine, On Baptism, Book 5 Chapter 28 (39): "Wherefore, if those appear to men to be baptized in Catholic unity who renounce the world in words only and not in deeds, how do they belong to the mystery of this ark in whom there is not the answer of a good conscience? Or how are they saved by water, who, making a bad use of holy baptism, though they seem to be within, yet persevere to the end of their days in a wicked and abandoned course of life? Or how can they fail to be saved by water, of whom Cyprian himself records that they were in time past simply admitted to the Church with the baptism which they had received in heresy? For the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, "The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale." If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. It is therefore possible that some who have been baptized without may be considered, through the foreknowledge of God, to have been really baptized within, because within the water begins to be profitable to them unto salvation; nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water. And again, some who seemed to have been baptized within may be considered, through the same foreknowledge of God, more truly to have been baptized without, since, by making a bad use of baptism, they die by water, which then happened to no one who was not outside the ark. Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark through the same water, through which all who are in heart without, whether they are also in body without or not, die as enemies of unity. As therefore it was not another but the same water that saved those who were placed within the ark, and destroyed those who were left without the ark, so it is not by different baptisms, but by the same, that good Catholics are saved, and bad Catholics or heretics perish."
I just highlighted the interesting word that Thomists/Augustinians, and Calvinists alike despise "foreknowledge" and also that in the end St. Augustine says baptism saves but ultimately what makes the baptized saved or unsaved is the position of the heart.
Once again, may our hearts be better than our heads.
I was always taught this passage as a quintessential message of salvation and I still always like to read "believe on" or "believeth on" rather than "believe in" because as one fundamentalist Baptist pastor explained to me, to believe in is to refer to yourself and your heart, to believe ON is to believe on what Jesus has already done on the cross. But as a Catholic I also like to see that St. Paul also had the sacramental side as well.
St. Augustine, On Baptism, Book 5 Chapter 28 (39): "Wherefore, if those appear to men to be baptized in Catholic unity who renounce the world in words only and not in deeds, how do they belong to the mystery of this ark in whom there is not the answer of a good conscience? Or how are they saved by water, who, making a bad use of holy baptism, though they seem to be within, yet persevere to the end of their days in a wicked and abandoned course of life? Or how can they fail to be saved by water, of whom Cyprian himself records that they were in time past simply admitted to the Church with the baptism which they had received in heresy? For the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, "The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale." If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. It is therefore possible that some who have been baptized without may be considered, through the foreknowledge of God, to have been really baptized within, because within the water begins to be profitable to them unto salvation; nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water. And again, some who seemed to have been baptized within may be considered, through the same foreknowledge of God, more truly to have been baptized without, since, by making a bad use of baptism, they die by water, which then happened to no one who was not outside the ark. Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark through the same water, through which all who are in heart without, whether they are also in body without or not, die as enemies of unity. As therefore it was not another but the same water that saved those who were placed within the ark, and destroyed those who were left without the ark, so it is not by different baptisms, but by the same, that good Catholics are saved, and bad Catholics or heretics perish."
I just highlighted the interesting word that Thomists/Augustinians, and Calvinists alike despise "foreknowledge" and also that in the end St. Augustine says baptism saves but ultimately what makes the baptized saved or unsaved is the position of the heart.
Once again, may our hearts be better than our heads.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Observations In The Church of Rome (Pt.5) - A Love-Hate Relationship
I was talking to Claire the other day and complaining about the Pro-Life movement, the Rosary, and the RCIA program and she said "Are you even Catholic!?" because I was criticizing the Church so much. It was a funny question because I find if I criticized the Roman Catholic Church from the outside, I criticize it more from the inside, but these are very different criticisms and are motivated in an entirely different way.
From outside the Church I criticized all the typical Protestant complaints about Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, etc. But little to none of that was based on evidence, and it was motivated by a direct hatred for the Church. My Grandmother told me that Catholic Churches actually had rooms where they tortured "Christians" (I only believed Protestants were Christians, and I didn't know the Orthodox Church existed.). Those were the kind of typical problems I had with it. I criticized it to show it's untruth's, illegitimacy, and charlatanism. Funnily enough, I went on a tour of our Cathedral yesterday and I didn't see the Torture room, but I bet it's just hidden.
If someone asked me if I was a Reformer, I would probably say yes. I am all for Reforming the Church, if that is understood to be, challenging it in new ways, trying to bring a spirit of renewal, and urging it to act as it should. But I am not a Rebel. My understanding is that the Church is not something you and 2 friends can start in your basement. And even though the 3 people in the basement might be starting it for completely Christian ideals and goals, I still couldn't call it a Church in the proper theological sense (but that's a whole other issue)
So from within the Church I criticize it because I love it. I believe in the Innerancy of the Magesterium's official Church teaching, but I also believe that this teaching is not making it to the Laity, the People of God, the rest of the Church. It exists in the Catechism, it exists in the speeches of the Popes and nearly everything they do. But it doesn't exist in the minds of most ordinary Catholics. And for this reason, I criticize day and night the Catholic Church. Not because of what it teaches, but who it teaches. It rarely makes it to the front lines as it were.
Just look at this quote from JP II
That's the gospel my friends, nothing could be clearer. And that's what the Church teaches officially. But like I said, when you get down to the local church you'll find the misinformation, the heresy (almost always Pelagianism or Judaism, ie. telling the story of salvation without mentioning Christ), and the apathy which is rampant (in my diocese at least).
I heard my dad explain once about the way that a parent gets angry at their children not because they hate them, but because they see them doing stupid things and not living up to their full potential. It is in this way that I get angry with my Church.
But as the hero of Western Christian theology said, "If you are silent, be silent out of love. If you speak, speak out of love."- St. Augustine. That's what I try to do.
Finally as a Reformer within the Church I find myself in good company, and I love this quote:
"The more administrative machinery we construct, be it the most modern, the less place there is for the Spirit, the less place there is for the Lord, and the less freedom there is. It is my opinion that we ought to begin an unsparing examination of conscience on this point at all levels in the Church." - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
If the Pope is for Reform, count me in.
From outside the Church I criticized all the typical Protestant complaints about Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, etc. But little to none of that was based on evidence, and it was motivated by a direct hatred for the Church. My Grandmother told me that Catholic Churches actually had rooms where they tortured "Christians" (I only believed Protestants were Christians, and I didn't know the Orthodox Church existed.). Those were the kind of typical problems I had with it. I criticized it to show it's untruth's, illegitimacy, and charlatanism. Funnily enough, I went on a tour of our Cathedral yesterday and I didn't see the Torture room, but I bet it's just hidden.
If someone asked me if I was a Reformer, I would probably say yes. I am all for Reforming the Church, if that is understood to be, challenging it in new ways, trying to bring a spirit of renewal, and urging it to act as it should. But I am not a Rebel. My understanding is that the Church is not something you and 2 friends can start in your basement. And even though the 3 people in the basement might be starting it for completely Christian ideals and goals, I still couldn't call it a Church in the proper theological sense (but that's a whole other issue)
So from within the Church I criticize it because I love it. I believe in the Innerancy of the Magesterium's official Church teaching, but I also believe that this teaching is not making it to the Laity, the People of God, the rest of the Church. It exists in the Catechism, it exists in the speeches of the Popes and nearly everything they do. But it doesn't exist in the minds of most ordinary Catholics. And for this reason, I criticize day and night the Catholic Church. Not because of what it teaches, but who it teaches. It rarely makes it to the front lines as it were.
Just look at this quote from JP II
"God passionately desires and ardently yearns for our salvation... Nothing is greater than this: that the blood of God was poured out for us."- Pope John Paul II.
That's the gospel my friends, nothing could be clearer. And that's what the Church teaches officially. But like I said, when you get down to the local church you'll find the misinformation, the heresy (almost always Pelagianism or Judaism, ie. telling the story of salvation without mentioning Christ), and the apathy which is rampant (in my diocese at least).
I heard my dad explain once about the way that a parent gets angry at their children not because they hate them, but because they see them doing stupid things and not living up to their full potential. It is in this way that I get angry with my Church.
But as the hero of Western Christian theology said, "If you are silent, be silent out of love. If you speak, speak out of love."- St. Augustine. That's what I try to do.
Finally as a Reformer within the Church I find myself in good company, and I love this quote:
"The more administrative machinery we construct, be it the most modern, the less place there is for the Spirit, the less place there is for the Lord, and the less freedom there is. It is my opinion that we ought to begin an unsparing examination of conscience on this point at all levels in the Church." - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
If the Pope is for Reform, count me in.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
My Personal Relationship With Jesus
I spent the last 5 days with my friends from Capernwray who are some of the most genuine evangelicals (in every good sense of the word) I know. They've re-taught me alot about the faith and the importance of the Bible and the necessity for a personal relationship with Jesus.
I hope I never forget the first time I ever went to Mass, I just sat in the back row the whole time, I refused to kneel, there were no songs, and I didn't know any of the prayers, but I remember the homily. It was on the importance of having a personal relationship with Jesus and that it is the centre of a living faith. I'm not for a second pretending that the Roman Catholic Church I go to actually teaches what Wesley would call "true Christianity" or Schaeffer "True Spirituality" - that is, a faith based in the grace of God and the finished work of Christ on the Cross, rich in good works flowing from the power of the Holy Spirit. But it must have been an off night. I'm Catholic because the Christian tradition, Logic, and Scripture oblige me to, not because it does anything near a good job in actually preaching or practicing the gospel. But enough complaints.
I wanted to write about my personal walk with Christ and how it has strengthened this year. I've been reading the Bible again with an open heart and praying that God will teach me things. Starting with 2 Corinthians, a bit of Romans, and 1 Samuel I feel that God has re-inforced the most important parts of salvation to me. He has shown me that he has unlimited grace and love for me as long as I am in Christ. He has taught me about the significance of my baptism and faith in Christ. But most importantly God has reassured me in what my Catholic friend Philip once said in an email, that becoming a saint is not only possible for those in Christ, but it is an inevitability. I still find that the most difficult dogma to believe. The infallibility of the Church/Pope wasn't that difficult, the immaculate conception was difficult, but the complete Regeneration of a Christian in this life and the next (purgatory) - that seemed impossible.
I've learned alot in the past year about my sinfulness and as I sit here writing I find it humorous. My Atheist and Humanist friends always talk about the "freedom" from Relgion and Morality and how they can do whatever they want. Well I've been home 2 days and I've fought through God's grace, and my cooperation (which is still a grace) the temptation to fall back into the sin which has been a 'thorn in my flesh' so to speak. I'm pacing around and stressed out and at that moment I realized that in sin I'm not free at all. As one Protestant theologian said "the most free you will ever be is as a slave to Christ". I tend to agree with that alot. So now I pray and read my bible and read the words "Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the Flesh?" (Gal 3.3) and trying to have faith in the power of the Spirit. And so I wish always to be an Evangelical Catholic who is given grace through faith and the sacraments, and who is fed by the word of God and the Eucharist, and is always seeking to become what Christ is.
I close with St. Augustine's words which a friend gave me and which will annoy all my Reformed friends:
"God, oh Lord, grant me the power to overcome sin. For sin is that which you gave to us when you granted us free choice of will. If I choose wrongly, then I shall be justly punished for it. Is that not true, my Lord, of whom I indebted for my temporal existence. Thank you, Lord, for granting me the power to will my self not to sin." - St. Augustine
I hope I never forget the first time I ever went to Mass, I just sat in the back row the whole time, I refused to kneel, there were no songs, and I didn't know any of the prayers, but I remember the homily. It was on the importance of having a personal relationship with Jesus and that it is the centre of a living faith. I'm not for a second pretending that the Roman Catholic Church I go to actually teaches what Wesley would call "true Christianity" or Schaeffer "True Spirituality" - that is, a faith based in the grace of God and the finished work of Christ on the Cross, rich in good works flowing from the power of the Holy Spirit. But it must have been an off night. I'm Catholic because the Christian tradition, Logic, and Scripture oblige me to, not because it does anything near a good job in actually preaching or practicing the gospel. But enough complaints.
I wanted to write about my personal walk with Christ and how it has strengthened this year. I've been reading the Bible again with an open heart and praying that God will teach me things. Starting with 2 Corinthians, a bit of Romans, and 1 Samuel I feel that God has re-inforced the most important parts of salvation to me. He has shown me that he has unlimited grace and love for me as long as I am in Christ. He has taught me about the significance of my baptism and faith in Christ. But most importantly God has reassured me in what my Catholic friend Philip once said in an email, that becoming a saint is not only possible for those in Christ, but it is an inevitability. I still find that the most difficult dogma to believe. The infallibility of the Church/Pope wasn't that difficult, the immaculate conception was difficult, but the complete Regeneration of a Christian in this life and the next (purgatory) - that seemed impossible.
I've learned alot in the past year about my sinfulness and as I sit here writing I find it humorous. My Atheist and Humanist friends always talk about the "freedom" from Relgion and Morality and how they can do whatever they want. Well I've been home 2 days and I've fought through God's grace, and my cooperation (which is still a grace) the temptation to fall back into the sin which has been a 'thorn in my flesh' so to speak. I'm pacing around and stressed out and at that moment I realized that in sin I'm not free at all. As one Protestant theologian said "the most free you will ever be is as a slave to Christ". I tend to agree with that alot. So now I pray and read my bible and read the words "Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the Flesh?" (Gal 3.3) and trying to have faith in the power of the Spirit. And so I wish always to be an Evangelical Catholic who is given grace through faith and the sacraments, and who is fed by the word of God and the Eucharist, and is always seeking to become what Christ is.
I close with St. Augustine's words which a friend gave me and which will annoy all my Reformed friends:
"God, oh Lord, grant me the power to overcome sin. For sin is that which you gave to us when you granted us free choice of will. If I choose wrongly, then I shall be justly punished for it. Is that not true, my Lord, of whom I indebted for my temporal existence. Thank you, Lord, for granting me the power to will my self not to sin." - St. Augustine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)